Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

Igor Lubashev <> Mon, 04 November 2019 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398211200D7 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3GOMpONwJnM for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46A81200BA for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78176A045B for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 03:43:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572867803; bh=Gf+l0LOJJBSNPrYMAGlwTsSe9FRqBw9VY/M1Pd/u7kE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y0CjlhaHPqzIj1d1c8RuEdX2DyxTO0yB3LR4fd/z2oUuGzy7k712hYObOpVM7HAUw 0YigPPmNJUk1nYU6BBqi0k36bn4kDas/r21jp957FLLGdB6t9AAxf05ez35phVC1ry femLyq5Q7Mhzs7RUtFRmma3cqf8W0AmqCmk7xLAc=
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 03:43:23 -0800
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3155/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc00edbc95e7_492f3fe9686cd96411562c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:43:26 -0000

@kazuho If gateway does not have the keys, it has no more info than a multi-CDN case. In fact, it has less info -- it cannot tell when the new connection is for the same or different hostname than the one that issued the token.

I am interested in anyone presenting a material reduction in privacy in case (a) that is absent in a multi-CDN case with case (c).  (I am not aware of a way to prove lack of privacy concerns other than making an attempt to find some and falling to do so).

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: